- 56- Peter J. Haas
Kohler’s watch were, of course, influenced, at least in part, by the questions to which he was asked to respond. The bulk of the questions put to him from 193 to 1922 dealt with various aspects of marriage and burials. In these areas there were a number of customs and folkways that seriously concerned people and that stood in stark contrast to Western practice. In a sense Kohler was forced either to tell people that a certain practice was mandated by rabbinic tradition and teaching, or to exercise his historical-critical faculty and reassure people that the old, embarrassing folkways taught by grandfather could safely be ignored. There was, in a word, little truly halakhic material that would allow him to exercise the responsa form in its classical sense.
On the other hand, when truly halakhic questions did appear before the Responsa Committee, it often failed to respond adequately. Let me give just two examples. In his report in vol XXVII(1918), Kohler reports on a question put
to him about a child born apparently already circumcised.(28)
After examination, the mohel said nothing further needed to be done. The question was whether or not it would be permitted in this case to go ahead and name the baby without b’rit milah. Kohler apparently sick in bed, simply wired back his affirmative answer.(29) He was subsequently criticized on the grounds that he should have required at least tipat dam, a symbolic recircumcision. Here was a good chance for Kohler to write a solid classical responsum, and he allowed the opportunity to slip by. A similar situation appears in vol. XXIX(1919).(30) The question was whether or not Pyrex could be considered glass such that if it had once been used to cook meat, it could subsequently be used to